[Osmf-talk] 3→4% figure source? | Re: Commitment to open communication channels

Wed Aug 19 18:19:40 UTC 2020

I have the feeling that a checkbox in a renewal form may imply more reluctance to give one's gender, or more bias, than a survey dedicated to 'minority recognition' (for lack of better phrasing).
OSMF membership is something, but less interesting than an overall OSM community survey. 

Le 19 août 2020 18:44:41 GMT+02:00, Michal Migurski <mike at teczno.com> a écrit :
>These kinds of questions might also be made part of the OSMF membership renewal form, rather than a separate survey. We’ll have to wait longer for results but we’d end up with overall better coverage and a rolling source of data moving forward. We have precedent for asking survey questions via this channel in the past, via the "I consider my edits public domain" checkbox.
>
>Survey Monkey recommends this radio button format for a gender question:
>
>	What is your gender? A) Female B) Male C) Other + optional free-form text box
>	(https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/ask-survey-questions-sexual-orientation-gender-identity/) 
>
>-mike.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
>sf/ca            http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:21 AM, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I wasn't suggesting that OSMF look at the membership and guess at people's genders based on the names, I was suggesting OSMF conduct a *survey* as in, email all members and ask them, anonymously, what gender they identify as (and while we're at it, perhaps some other demographic data).
>> 
>> Women's reluctance to use their own names publicly is rather damning evidence of misogynistic culture, though this certainly isn't unique to OSM. If it wasn't, the number of privacy-minded men using their wives' names would balance out your examples.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:05 AM john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com <mailto:jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> But then you get into the problem of people using different names.
>> 
>> My wife orders things in my name rather than hers since she doesn't want her name exposed.  My mother-in-law's phone was listed in her husband's name after he died again to avoid publishing her name.
>> 
>> I've had enough emails sent through OSM to accept that not everyone wishes to communicate politely and I suspect that many female mappers will not use their own name to avoid problems.
>> 
>> Cheerio John
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 11:47 Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>> It seems to me that OSMF should conduct its own survey. It may not be representative of OSM contributors or users entirely, but would likely be representative of OSMF membership, which is who directly elects the Board.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:26 AM Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org <mailto:rory at technomancy.org>> wrote:
>> The 3 sources are:
>> 
>> [3] Haklay, M. and Budhathoki, N. (2010), OpenStreetMap – Overview and 
>> Motivational Factors, Horizon Infrastructure Challenge Theme Day, The 
>> University of Nottingham.
>> 
>> A presentation (not paper?) ( 
>> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/16461/Horizon%20March%202010%20(Haklay%20and%20Budhahtoki).pdf <https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/16461/Horizon%20March%202010%20(Haklay%20and%20Budhahtoki).pdf> 
>> ), using data from April (or July?) 2009. It doesn't say how they 
>> collected the data, I think a survey of 426 people, of which 3% were 
>> female (Pg. 30).
>> 
>> [4] Lechner, M. (2011), Nutzungspotentiale crowdsourceerhobener Geodaten 
>> auf verschiedenen Skalen, Dissertation, Freiburg.
>> 
>> https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/fedora/objects/freidok:8181/datastreams/FILE1/content <https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/fedora/objects/freidok:8181/datastreams/FILE1/content> 
>> (⚠ 180 page PDF ⚠)
>> 
>> It looks like that was an online survey in December 2010 of 225 
>> responses (Pg. 78) advertised on the German language mailing lists (I 
>> think this is it 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-October/078162.html <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-October/078162.html> 
>> etc ). 1.8% of respondents were female.
>> 
>> [5] Stark, H.J. (2011), Empirische Untersuchung der Motivation von 
>> Teilnehmenden bei der freiwilligen Erfassung von Geodaten, 
>> Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Präsentation
>> 
>> I can't find this source online. Do you have a link? It's from 2011, so 
>> it might not be very informative for today.
>> 
>> 
>> “10 years ago ~200→400 OSMers were selected somehow and surveyed” isn't 
>> really a smoking gun, and not very useful for making predictions about 
>> things *today*
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> (PS. replying from the right email account this time)
>> 
>> On 19/08/2020 10:04, Simon Poole wrote:
>> > http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_218905.pdf <http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_218905.pdf> references three 
>> > papers as justification for a 2-5% number. More recent publications tend 
>> > to indicate slightly higher numbers.
>> > 
>> > Simon
>> > 
>> > Am 19.08.2020 um 09:14 schrieb Rory McCann:
>> >> Where's your evidence/What's your source for this 3→4% figure?
>> >>
>> >> On 19/08/2020 00:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> sent from a phone
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 18. Aug 2020, at 18:21, Michael Reichert <osm-ml at michreichert.de <mailto:osm-ml at michreichert.de>> 
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Did you confuse this year with last year? There have been two women on
>> >>>> the board until December. However, currently no woman is on the 
>> >>>> board of
>> >>>> directors.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I am aware of this, my comment was meant for the whole of 
>> >>> OpenStreetMap-Foundation history, i.e. all women on all boards 
>> >>> through all the years as well as for the last years.
>> >>> I’ve looked if up and it seems in total we have had 91 board member 
>> >>> terms of which 10 were served by women (11%) and since 2015 it were 
>> >>> 35 terms with 6 served by women (17%) compared to an estimated 
>> >>> participation of women in the project of 3-4%. It may sound cynical, 
>> >>> but these are the numbers I have found. For me there is no doubt that 
>> >>> more participation of female mappers, both in mapping and in tag 
>> >>> development, would be beneficial to the project, but not having them 
>> >>> adequately represented in the board is apparently not the root of the 
>> >>> problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers Martin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> >>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> osmf-talk mailing list
>> >> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > osmf-talk mailing list
>> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> > 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200819/7b6ff48f/attachment.htm>